4.7 Article

Low Serum Calcium Levels Contribute to Larger Hematoma Volume in Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage

期刊

STROKE
卷 44, 期 7, 页码 2004-+

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.001187

关键词

acute stroke; hematoma; intracerebral hemorrhage; serum calcium; stroke outcome

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan [H23-Junkanki-Ippan-010, H24-Junkanki-Ippan-011]
  2. Intramural Research Fund for Cardiovascular Diseases from the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center [H22-4-1, H23-4-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-We investigate whether admission serum calcium levels are associated with hematoma volume, stroke severity, and outcomes in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage. Methods-A total of 273 patients admitted within 24 hours after intracerebral hemorrhage onset was divided into quartiles based on admission serum calcium levels (Q1 [<= 9.0], Q2 [9.1-9.3], Q3 [9.4-9.7], Q4 [>= 9.8] mg/dL). Results-Median hematoma volumes for each quartile (Q1 to Q4) were 18, 9, 10, and 9 mL (P=0.005), and median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores were 16, 11, 11, and 9 (P=0.010), respectively. On multivariate analysis, Q1 had larger hematoma volume (P=0.025) and higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (P=0.020) than Q4. There were fewer patients with modified Rankin Scale scores 0 to 2 in Q1 than Q4 after adjustment for risk factors and comorbidities (odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.84) but not after additional adjustment for hematoma volume and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score. There were more patients with modified Rankin Scale scores 5 to 6 (P=0.016) and with fatal outcomes (P=0.048) in Q1 than Q4 as crude values, but not after adjustment. Conclusions-Low admission serum calcium levels were associated with larger hematoma volume and higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score among patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据